Cauhn v. State

122 So. 565, 98 Fla. 185, 1929 Fla. LEXIS 1159
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 18, 1929·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Buford, J.

In this case it becomes necessary for us to quash the writ of error and remand the cause because there appears in the record no judgment of conviction.

*186 The defendants were tried upon an information filed in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Hillsborough County. They were convicted by the jury and were sentenced to serve five years each in the State prison. The sentence was not upon a judgment of conviction pronounced by' the court, without which the sentence is void. See Smith v. State, 75 Fla. 478, 78 So. R. 530; Johnson v. State, 81 Fla. 783, 89 So. R. 114; Harris v. State, 75 Fla. 527, 78 So. R. 526; Norwood v. State, 80 Fla. 613, 86 So. R. 506; Timmons v. State, decided January, 1929, reported 119 S. 393.

It is therefore the .judgment of this Court that the writ of error be quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Quashed and remanded.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cauhn v. State, 122 So. 565, 98 Fla. 185, 1929 Fla. LEXIS 1159 (Fla. 1929).

122 So. 565 (Cauhn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Craig v. Noel
152 So. 185 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Ingram v. State
150 So. 591 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Ex Parte Young Ferris
149 So. 580 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Anderson v. Chapman
146 So. 675 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)